On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:47 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I think you are missing the way routes are procured in London. There is
no concept of "profits" at route level.

In which case TfL are missing a trick, given that there will be route
improvements which can be carried out at either zero overall cost or
at a profit to TfL overall.

This sounds like one such example.

Though London bus fares do seem too low to me - £1.50 would seem more
than reasonable for an Oyster single (if you consider this rather than
the non-Oyster "penalty" as the normal single), when compared with
other parts of the country.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:04:36 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

See my response about the tendering regime and "profitability" just
higher up in the overall thread of posts.

Yep, and replied to it. If TfL don't consider income on a given route
*at all*, they are seriously missing a trick and things are costing
them more than they need to as a result (and similarly they are
missing out on changes that could actually be profitable and thus
improve TfL's financial situation).

I'm not saying it would be sensible to go down the deregulation and
pure-profit route, but if something can be changed that is both
beneficial to the passenger and is revenue-neutral or profitable to
TfL overall, it seems ludicrous that it can't be done due to the way
things are accounted - or worse that it might never be identified in
the first place because the figures aren't added up.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:36:20 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I don't doubt there may be some genuine opportunities to trim services
but if it goes too far you will deter people from the public transport
system full stop. That is not a sensible policy if it dumps people into
cars.

This is true, but serious overcrowding also has the same effect, at a
time of day when it is rather more of a problem.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

My main comment here is "hands off decent evening bus frequencies". The
problem with taking an axe to things like this is that you remove an
important incentive for people to make trips on public transport. If
you can only get in to town but not back again in a convenient way why
would you make the outward trip on public transport?

Any cuts will hurt, so it's a question of what hurts least.

As it happens, I would rather retain existing service levels, London-wide
(barring a few extreme examples of low use), and bridge the budget gap
through cutting back concessions for the elderly, teenagers and those on
benefits. Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Chris

On Oct 26, 5:04*pm, Eyebee wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000, asdf wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus does
not cover its own running costs?

London's public transport system always seems to be far too expensive to
get more people off the roads and onto buses and trains.

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 27, 3:14*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. *Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

But, they are high compared with competing international business
centers. And, for that matter tourist destinations.

When I have worked in Edinburgh, the monthly, all routes, bus pass has
seemed reasonable. Although it has been several years since I have
had that pleasure.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

"E27002" wrote:

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

Chris

On Oct 27, 3:37*pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

On Oct 26, 11:44*pm, asdf wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507 wrote:
That said, given that said service is mainly about linking the WCML to
the SWML, it could I suppose be extended to 8 then not stop at
Imperial Wharf. * How long is the platform at Shepherd's Bush?

4! Same at West Brompton. I think the assumption has been made that
CLJ 16 and 17 will never be sorted out, so why bother when LOROL will
be a 4-car max railway forever more?

LOROL doesn't use 16/17 at CLJ...

LOROL will be a 4-car railway. CLJ 16 and 17, served by SN, won't be
sorted out any time soon [1]. So all trains will be 4-car max for the
foreseeable and there is consequently no need for platforms of longer
than 4 coaches anywhere on the WLL.

I don't think building 4-car platforms was that big a mistake,
provided passive provision was made for extension to 8-car.

That hasn't happened.

Willesden
Junction (HL) is another limiting factor. Better to have 4-car
stations that get built than 8-car stations that don't because they're
too expensive. Once the service is running and demand is proven,
there's more of a case for extending to 8-car.

Have you seen peak loadings on the WLL? There is already a case for 8-
car trains, but the best we can hope for is a combined peak frequency
of 6 tph (all 4-car by 2012). Trains are so busy that LOROL's have
been designed for maximising standing crush loads.

[1] LOROL *does* use CLJ 17 on Sundays when there is engineering work
affecting access to 2.